If this is about those stupid "power rankings", they mean less than nothing.

The Niners beat us fair and square - well, almost. That makes them the better team by performance the first week. If the game was 61 minutes, it was ours ..... but give them one more possession after that, and who knows?

Is there anybody else better or even close to either the Niners or Packers? I don't think so.

Saying we are not even close? That's just ridiculous. Would anybody say the Niners were not even close to the top if we had the last possession and beat them?

If this is about those stupid "power rankings", they mean less than nothing.

The Niners beat us fair and square - well, almost. That makes them the better team by performance the first week. If the game was 61 minutes, it was ours ..... but give them one more possession after that, and who knows?

Is there anybody else better or even close to either the Niners or Packers? I don't think so.

Saying we are not even close? That's just ridiculous. Would anybody say the Niners were not even close to the top if we had the last possession and beat them?

You mean if we had ONE more minute in time of possession? Or let's say 30 seconds, because if you take the ball away from them, that's 30 less that they have too.

I recall the 2007 Giants playing New England in the last game of that season. Nobody gave them a chance. They did lose that week, but they left the field knowing they could play with the Patriots. The same thing happened in 2011. They played the mighty Packers and it took a Mason Crosby game-winning field goal (when he actually made kicks) for the Packers to keep the undefeated streak alive. The Giants also walked away knowing they could play with Green Bay. They won both rematches en route to two Super Bowl titles.

Last year, I don't believe Green Bay ever left the field believing they could play with San Francisco. They kicked the Packers all over the field in both games. Those scores actually don't indicate how much better San Francisco was in 2012. Last week, however, I think (hope) the Packers left the field knowing they can play with the 49ers. They were winning in the fourth quarter. Their defense was matching San Francisco's physicality. For the most part, Rodgers had time to throw. There were many positives to come from this game. Yes, some awful negatives, but San Francisco is supposed to be the best the NFL offers. The Packers went to their house in week one and gave them all they had. We’ll see how the season goes, but I’m looking forward to a potential rematch this time.

We had lousy field position all night (some of it self-induced), we played sloppy with turnovers and penalties, and WE STILL LOST BY LESS THAN 7 POINTS.

In this game, the 49ers were better...but not much better.

Last year in the playoffs, they were a LOT better.

We eliminate our own errors and this is a win. And since this was only the first game of the season, we have time to straighten out KO returners who bring it out when they should have taken a knee, LGs who are still adjusting to playing on the left side rather than the right, etc.

It's incredibly difficult to win every game. I'd rather be peaking at the end of the season (2010) than too early in the season (2011).

From the standpoint of watching that game in real time, did it seem to you we were IN this game?

Did you get the sense that we were dominating? Did you get the sense that WE were going to WIN?

When we tied it at the half, I thought it more a freak anomaly. When we went ahead with 6 minutes left in the 4th, I got the sense there was just too much time and that they would score to take the lead.

We seemed horribly pourus against the pass and more reactionary on offense for me to think we were really in this game, with a legit chance to win. Had our D lifted and made some things happen in the 4th Quarter it all would have changed.

Looking at the game from afar, yeah, we were close. One score away. But, in that game real time, that last score looked insurmountable. So much so, you almost knew how it would play out before our own last score. It's just the way that game went.

I do agree macbob, if we are going to peak I would rather it be at the end of the season going into the playoffs.

If we can only win one game this year against SF, I'll gladly take the playoff game for the W!

If this is about those stupid "power rankings", they mean less than nothing.

The Niners beat us fair and square - well, almost. That makes them the better team by performance the first week. If the game was 61 minutes, it was ours ..... but give them one more possession after that, and who knows?

Is there anybody else better or even close to either the Niners or Packers? I don't think so.

Saying we are not even close? That's just ridiculous. Would anybody say the Niners were not even close to the top if we had the last possession and beat them?

Did you know Rodgers is 0-17 vs. .500 teams and better in 4th Quarter comebacks?

Yeesh. I don't like to make mention of this fact, but there it is. I hope Rodgers and the Packers (this stat is in no way just on Rodgers, but the entire Packers team) can change that.

From the standpoint of watching that game in real time, did it seem to you we were IN this game?

Did you get the sense that we were dominating? Did you get the sense that WE were going to WIN?

When we tied it at the half, I thought it more a freak anomaly. When we went ahead with 6 minutes left in the 4th, I got the sense there was just too much time and that they would score to take the lead.

We seemed horribly pourus against the pass and more reactionary on offense for me to think we were really in this game, with a legit chance to win. Had our D lifted and made some things happen in the 4th Quarter it all would have changed.

Looking at the game from afar, yeah, we were close. One score away. But, in that game real time, that last score looked insurmountable. So much so, you almost knew how it would play out before our own last score. It's just the way that game went.

I do agree macbob, if we are going to peak I would rather it be at the end of the season going into the playoffs.

If we can only win one game this year against SF, I'll gladly take the playoff game for the W!

They definitely "let us hang around." But we also shit ourselves, repeatedly.

Not sure how "top dog" it is to be ranked #7 by AP, #6 by FOX (and that's advancing one position simply because we hung with SF), #7 by ESPN, #9 by CBS... Hey! Bleacher Report has us at #5!!!

Honestly, I don't put a whole lot into that either texaspackerbacker. My gut feeling on this is Mike McCarthy is dealing with a good number of unknowns. The run game, his OL, and his secondary depth without Burnett, Hayward and House in there... He is going to have to figure out how best to play his guys, which are his best guys, and get this whole thing dialed in nice and tight after the bye week for a really nice run through the remainder of the season and into the playoffs.

That is a lot of ground to cover, and a lot can happen over these next 19 weeks or so. Hopefully we can go into the bye 2-1, with a more firm handle on what kind of team we really are, and a solid plan moving forward. Hopefully, we can get the rest of our guys healthy, and that they can stay healthy throughout.

We can be top dog again. We simply are not there yet, not by any means. Lots of proving to do.

As you mentioned, the D has the capability to piss games away with great regularity (since the 2011 KC loss), and I think this statistical listing unfairly points to the QBs. How much of it revolves around missed FGs, or blown leads by the D, or poor play calling by the HC or OC, or game mismanagement, etc? It all factors in.

Our offense failed to get a first down at a crucial moment in the game. Special teams failed to give us favorable field position as well. San Fran's defense was clutch when it mattered most to our offense and we couldn't beat them. That could have been a statement. My hope is we grow as a team to the point that when put in this situation again that we rise to the occasion rather than fail. We shall see. I never blame one guy because football is the ultimate team sport.

Our offense failed to get a first down at a crucial moment in the game. Special teams failed to give us favorable field position as well. San Fran's defense was clutch when it mattered most to our offense and we couldn't beat them. That could have been a statement. My hope is we grow as a team to the point that when put in this situation again that we rise to the occasion rather than fail. We shall see. I never blame one guy because football is the ultimate team sport.

What an awesome, awesome post! That is exactly the way I feel.

I don't want to pretend we are the best team in the NFL. I want our team to be the best team in the NFL. We lost our stake to that title back in 2011, and it has been eluding us ever since. Just saying we are the best doesn't make it so.

Ross? Get rid of that guy. I mean, really. He sucks. Pure and simple. What has he done to help us win games?

M D Jennings? Why? Why is he in our secondary? Can't we do better?

Those two players alone were big trouble for us in trying to overtake a strong SF team on their home turf. We've got some real proving to do, and some great opportunities to better ourselves and our team in the weeks ahead.

Also, not to be alarmist (too late, I know [laughing] ), as we were a backup S, maybe another DB and a not so good returner away from pulling that game out!

If this is about those stupid "power rankings", they mean less than nothing.

The Niners beat us fair and square - well, almost. That makes them the better team by performance the first week. If the game was 61 minutes, it was ours ..... but give them one more possession after that, and who knows?

Is there anybody else better or even close to either the Niners or Packers? I don't think so.

Saying we are not even close? That's just ridiculous. Would anybody say the Niners were not even close to the top if we had the last possession and beat them?

Agreed - most "ranking" systems go by raw stats - which is deceiving depending on who plays who. A good team playing against a low tier team will usually look amazing on the stat sheets - - However a great team playing against a great team will usually look less impressive in terms of stats.

At the end of they day it is all about what teams can consistently find ways to win - especially in difficult matches. Obviously we fell a little short on this last weekend.

Our offense failed to get a first down at a crucial moment in the game. Special teams failed to give us favorable field position as well. San Fran's defense was clutch when it mattered most to our offense and we couldn't beat them. That could have been a statement. My hope is we grow as a team to the point that when put in this situation again that we rise to the occasion rather than fail. We shall see. I never blame one guy because football is the ultimate team sport.

My hope is that this team starts showing up ready to play for 60 minutes, on a regular basis.

There is hopefully some internal pressure going on to remove Ross from his duties. Who takes his place is the problematic question. My deal is that if it is late in the game, take a damn knee, I don't care what you see out there. It ain't going to hold up for you long enough after you have made up your mind to go or stay in.

We are certainly not as consistent as some of the top dogs in the league no question, but I watched all the games through the week, and there were teams that made us look like a contender right now even after a loss like that.

We are certainly not as consistent as some of the top dogs in the league no question, but I watched all the games through the week, and there were teams that made us look like a contender right now even after a loss like that.

This is a great point. Many other teams appears as if they looked below the Packers. I know it doesn't mean much as it's only week 1 and each match up is different, but the Packers look pretty good this season. I said right after the loss that the Packers will win a minimum of 10 games, and possibly 11 or 12.

Do I think the Packers are as far away from SF as they were in the playoffs last year? No.

Do I think the Packers can, by the end of the season, be in a position that they are the better team of the two? Yes.

But they have a couple major tasks ahead of them first:

1. OL.2. Pass defense.

Indeed, IMO they have to fix at least one of those two if they want to get another shot at SF this year.

1. Total crap shoot. One of the areas of this team that I just don't plan to get my hopes up on. Hate to be the "debbie downer" but with the recent back problems of Sitton, I can only see things getting worse, even if Sitton does play.

2. Could get a lot better. Very hopeful it will. With the return of Burnett (this week) and Hayward a month from now, the Packers secondary should be in a good position to be successful.

All in all, they have a chance. I can't imagine what this team would be like if they had an above average offensive line. Gives me the chills thinking about it.

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

gbguy20 (9-Feb) : or get him to take a team friendly number now while promising him a massive marketing contract in retirement to make up for it

gbguy20 (9-Feb) : jimmy g set the record after 7 starts. you really think Rodgers value goes down? sign him now and make it cap friendly for the next 2 years. get him for 28.5 per now instead of 34 per year a year or 2

Zero2Cool (9-Feb) : He has multiple years left, he can wait until final year, like the process goes

Zero2Cool (9-Feb) : he didn't play like a Superstar vs Panthers, he doesn't deserve new deal.

Porforis (9-Feb) : This assumes Rodgers continues to play like a superstar and doesn't miss additional seasons, lowering his value entering the mid to tail end of his career.